Duchess of Kent Hospice Also known as Duchess of Kent House - Dellwood Community Hospital

Updated 13 January 2020

Duchess of Kent is operated by Sue Ryder a national charitable organisation which offers palliative care and treatment for adults living with life-limiting conditions. The hospice opened in 1992 as a NHS organisation, however was taken over by the Sue Ryder organisation in 2011. The service covers a catchment area in West Berkshire, including Reading, Wokingham and Newbury. The main hospice is located in Reading where the inpatient facility is located, day services are run from here and two satellite centres in Wokingham and Newbury.

The hospice has had several registered managers in post since 2011. At the time of the inspection, the current registered manager had been in post and registered with the CQC since January 2019.

The registered manager is the hospice’s accountable officer for controlled drugs.

Updated 13 January 2020

Duchess of Kent Hospice is operated by Sue Ryder a national charitable organisation which specialises in providing palliative and neurological care to people living with life-limiting conditions.

The hospice has 15 inpatient beds. Facilities include an inpatient unit, day therapy unit, lymphoedema service, community specialist palliative care to patients at home service, and a bereavement service. Duchess of Kent hospice operated from a location in Reading and had satellite centres in Wokingham and Newbury.

The hospice provides end of life and palliative care for adults.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short-notice announced inspection on 7th and 8th November 2019. We gave staff two days’ notice that we were coming to ensure that everyone we needed to talk to was available. We inspected services at Reading and Wokingham.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as Outstanding overall.

We found outstanding practice in relation to:

• Staff treated patients and their families with compassion and kindness, respected their dignity and privacy, and went above and beyond expectations to meet their individual needs and wishes. Staff were devoted to doing all they could to support the emotional needs of patients, families and carers to minimise their distress. Staff helped patients live every day to the fullest.

• Services were delivered in a way to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care and were tailored to meet patients’ individual needs and wishes. The service planned and provided care in a way that fully met the needs of local people and the communities served. It also worked proactively with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care and improve services.

• It was easy for people to give feedback. Concerns and complaints were taken seriously and investigated, and improvements were made in response to feedback where possible. Patients could access services when they needed them.

• Leaders ran services well using best practice information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff were motivated to provide the best care they could for their patients. There was a common focus on improving the quality and sustainability of care and people’s experiences. Staff were proud to work at the service and felt respected, supported and valued. Leaders operated effective governance processes and staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients, staff and the local community.

We found good practice in relation to:

• Despite some staff vacancies, the service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve services.

• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and best practice. Staff gave patients enough to eat and drink and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.

• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs and wishes, and made it easy for people to give feedback. Concerns and complaints were taken seriously and investigated, and improvements were made in response to feedback where possible. Patients could access services when they needed them.

We found areas of practice that require improvement:

• Clinical and pharmaceutical waste was not always stored securely.

• ReSPECT forms were not audited to check for completeness.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)

Updated 13 January 2020

We rated this service as outstanding for caring and well-led and good for safe, effective and responsive.